The article Emergent algebra deserves a “stamp of quality”. Providing such stamps is one of the roles of FoM, according to Timothy Gowers. So, I went for such a stamp, because really that’s all this article needs. Moreover,

I highly respect the mathematicians who initiated FoM and I would be very glad to hear about their opinion on this piece of research which looks like it does not finds it’s place (because it’s revolutionary, I say, but hey, I’m the author, I am allowed to say this).

I was expecting to get a detailed, useful, fair review from this new journal started by people described at point 2.

Today, 30 April 2013, I just received an e-mail from FoM. In a sense, I got my stamp of quality and I express my thanks for it. I reproduce the message:

30-Apr-2013

Dear Dr. Buliga:

I write you in regards to manuscript # Sigma-2013-0027 entitled
“Emergent algebras” which you submitted to the Forum of Mathematics,
Sigma.

Unfortunately, your manuscript has been denied publication in Forum of
Mathematics. Although it is an interesting line of investigation,
based on advice from experts in the area, it was felt that the results
are not compelling enough for publication in Sigma.

Thank you for considering Forum of Mathematics, Sigma for the
publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific
submission will not discourage you from the submission of future
manuscripts.

As I said, if people like Donaldson, Kleiner and McMullen say that’s “an interesting line of investigation”, what could I ask more? Ah, maybe a referee report? As I was expecting, see previous point 3? (As for “experts in the area”, I would like to meet them, because it’s a new area, I invented it.) Or at least, which interpretation is correct, ” although it is an interesting line of investigation, based on advice from experts in the area”, or this one “based on advice from experts in the area, it was felt that …”?

More intrigued I was by the expression, which I never encountered before in a message from a publisher: “your manuscript has been denied publication in Forum of Mathematics”.

It’s a coincidence, it may have no meaning, but I can’t help to notice that in the morning I posted “Research banana republic“, where I take the side of Mike Taylor’s post “Predatory publishers: a real problem“. In that post Mike Taylor criticizes among others the Cambridge University Press, which is the publisher of FoM. In the evening I got the previously written message from FoM concerning “denied” publication of my article. But, but … it’s math, not politics! Nah, it has to be a coincidence.

Thank you Stephen, as you say: “Onward!” Have you seen Geometric Ruzsa inequality on groupoids and deformations where the Ruzsa triangle inequality is proved to be a consequence of the mindblowing and then and a bit of emergent algebras? And thanks, David (first comment has to be approved, hence the delay). But “level” without any argument has no place in mathematics, at least that’s what I believe and wait for a PLoS or better, PeerJ GREEN variant of publication to appear for mathematicians (i.e. with technical and not “level”, open pre- and post- peer-review). Besides, also because “denied” is a funny word, in my (hyper-active) imagination I think that’s not a “level” problem, but from this data alone is hard to get an objective viewpoint.